November 9, 2018
By Meher Khanna and Bryant Xia
Three new questions appeared on Mass. voters’ ballots during the 2018 midterms. These questions dealt with healthcare, corporate influence, and transgender discrimination. We surveyed LHS students about their opinions on the results of the election. Although many of the surveyed students are under the voting age, they are still aware of the ballot questions.
Question 1, which Mass. voted against, would have put a limit on the ratio of patients per nurse. Surveyed students disagreed with the Mass. decision.
“[The policy] would have helped nurses balance their personal and work lives and limit their stress,” Nadia Ivanenko, a sophomore, said.
Others cited positive effects on patients.
“Less patients per nurse would make sure each patient is administered the amount of care and attention they need,” Linda Kebichi, a sophomore, said.
However, others who initially supported the question acknowledged its drawbacks.
“[The policy] would have been implemented way too fast, in 2019, not giving enough time for hospitals to hire well-trained nurses,” Larry Lin, a sophomore, said.
Question 2, on which Mass. voted “Yes”, centered the issue of corporate rights. It will result in the creation of a 15-member commission to recommend a constitutional amendment to establish campaign finance regulation and overturn the Citizens United v. FEC decision Supreme Court decision that gave corporations personhood status.
Most surveyed students were happy with the “Yes” decision.
“Campaign contributions should be regulated because it creates a level playing field for candidates that don’t all have an equal supply of money, as money often can buy power,” Kebichi said.
Some students remained apathetic about Question 2.
“I am not very sure what the question asked and how it [will] affect me, or other citizens,” Ivanenko said.
The third and final question concerned an existing piece of legislature that adds gender identity to the list of prohibited grounds of discrimination in public locations. This legislation allowed people to use restrooms consistent with their gender identities in places with separate areas for males and females, such as restrooms.
All of the surveyed students agreed with the “Yes” vote.
Some see gender identity as an issue that needs to be addressed in laws.
“Gender is just as much of a legitimate factor of identity as any of the other grounds [of discrimination],” Kebichi said.
Others noted the symbolic message this legislature contains.
“People of different gender identities should be accepted in society,” Evern Arif, a sophomore, said.
Comments